Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuri
Most offices are deemed reliable anyway and I don't think IMF uses an alternative GDP for China on their official list. It's pretty much the same number provided by Chinese and specially as multilateral organization they just can't dismiss the 2nd most important country in the world as "liars" on their most important report.
|
Offices from countries with a century of transparent market economics, yes.
But no one goes to Ipsos and says, "Hey, can you give us a market risk assessment of this massive capital project we're thinking about financing in the Netherlands? We're just not sold on Dutch geopolitical stability or market transparency." They ask for these when thinking about investing in emerging markets where offices are decidedly
not transparent.
The IMF "officially" respects numbers submitted by Beijing, but in private company, individuals working for the IMF encourage investors to "do their own diligence." I've personally been part of such conversations.
2 minutes of glancing at the SERPs for "How reliable is China's GDP official data" should tell you how often this question gets asked. Just remember: at literally every level of reporting, local Party officials are highly incentivized* to "correct the data" so it tells the story its supposed to tell. That's how mixed command economies work. The US Fed discounts official GDP numbers from Beijing. This is precisely because the Chinese NBS offers no transparency on their data-gathering process and statistical procedures. None at all.
* negatively incentivized that is: report the "correct" numbers or lose your job/go to jail